Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1887-04-07
ELECTION OF U. S. SENATOR.

that precedents had been set both ways by
the Senate of the United States on the ques-
ton whether the Executive of State had
the power to appoint to ill vacancy occur
ring by the effux of time, or the expiration
of a regular full Senatorial term and the COM
mencement of a new one. The cases were
and named in which in the early
history of the general government. the ac-
ton of the Senate was TO receive the APP
pointees of the Governors chosen to fill such
vacancies.
These precedents were followed for some
years, and until the Lanman case gave rise
to a searching examination OF the question
which resulted in reversing the former de-
cisions Of the Senate and the establishment
of precedent directly opposite that which
Heretofore had been observed. The Lanman
case ruled the action of the Senate, in all
like cases. from 1925 to 1879, or a period CT
fifty four years-when that was overruled by
the Bell case. In view of these conflicting
aud repuguant decisions of the Senate, II
occurred TO me that the proper treatment
of the subject was not upon precedent which
varied. but upon reason and authority
mean by authority the careful conclusions
of the ab.est statesmen aud lawyers OF
the country who have maturely considered
the question and have given Us their judg-
meuts upon it. In reply to this mode OF
treatment Lawyer" in the Vest Virginia
Democrat, County and State editions, seems
TO imagine that he has disposed Of the sub
iect by calling attention to the fact that
Senator Edmunds announces the settled law
on this subject in language which may well
assure both the friends and the enemies
of Mr.. Lucas that this question will not be
reopened by the Senate
He then introduces long quotation from
Mr.. Edmuuds in which he exhorts the Sen
ate to observe the last precedent or that which
was adopted in the Bell case. Mr. Edmunds
saws that "the Senate sitting upon such a
question sits as judges'-aud then suggests
that as courts are held bound ordinarily by
their own decisions so the Senate should be
bound by is decisions of the same question.
And still we saw in my former article
that. with all Mr.. Edmunds' rever-
ence for decisions and Precedents,-in the
Bell case he not only recorded his vote In
favor of reversing the decision in the Lam
man case, which had gone unchallenged as
the settled law of the question for htty-iour
years. but by able and subtle argument
ought TO convince the Senate that it ought
not To be bound by that case but should dis
regard and override it.
And yet Lawyer is very serene and con-
lident apparently in the opinion that there
j, mo- danger that precedents will be disturb
ell or oyerlhrown by the Senate eff the
United States
do not desire to disturb his composure,
If it affords him any comfort, but am un-
willing as a citizen of West Virginia and a
Democrat, to repose in the belief that, in
view of the unanswered and unanSwerabIe
process of reasoning pursued by the great
minds whose compact and powerful argu-
ments collected and submitted, and which
Lawyer" has not even specifically no
ticed-the Senate of the United States
could not easily find if it so desired, very
solid ground for the reversal of its last deci-
sions of the question which is Just now of
very great importance to the people OF this
State. Lawyer anays all his fears on the
subject by a quotation from Mr.. Edmuuds
and placidly exc!aimS so much for the first
head of the discussion
He then comes to my second proposition
which Is:
If the late Executive appointment OF
Senator be valid will il not terminate with
the extra session of the Legislature?'
LAWYER" Is somewhat disturbed at the
inquiry contained in this proposition. He
says:
"The solution OF the 2nd question is, we
admit, attended with more difficulty
1t may be that the source of the doubt
could very possibly be traced TO the fact
that Mr. Eduunds has expressed with great
emphasis, as we saw, the opinion that
The Governor may Mi until the merit meet
qg Of the Legislature. That having occurr-
81. his power, of course is exhausted, and
he cannot fill again"
Now, if Mr.. Edmunds authority can be
20 uuquestioniugly recognized and depended |
IN by Lawyer as settling the first propo-
i,ion which l undertook to discuss, why |
houId it not be equally potential in set
ling the second?
But this was not only the view of the dis
iuguished Chairman of the Jud ciary Com
ni,tee of the Senate but, as we have already
cen. of those who signed the minority re-
,ort i'm the Bell case; of Mr.. Hoar, one of
hat minority, of Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Bay
rd and Others in discussion of that case
indeed, ! think can safely say that there
vas not even doubt anywhere expressed,
BY anybody, during the long discussion of
hat case.-which was the ablest that has
AIKEN place on the questions to the cor
ectuess or sounduess of this view. l have
.ated, and / have shown, that this doctrine
100, ,,.sr, t,,,,I D 90 1.,,...e- -, .,,l -t.,to-